co2 at 30ppm is good for all planted tanks not just high light.
some plants like to have kh, so a kh of at least 1 is recommended
some plants like to have kh, so a kh of at least 1 is recommended
Target Water Chemistry (non-EI Category)
- Thread starter DJDrZ
- Start date
In my opinion, "you" "should" be doing whatever works for "you." While there are certainly a lot of people who seem to think weekly water changes are necessary, there are a lot of others who would disagree. So I think the question here is how to do this for people who don't necessarily agree with you about how often water needs to be changed.
the PPS-Pro system sounds like a good thing for me to try, based on what I'm reading at this link.
dont do weekly water changes, i dont care. its your fish living in their crap not me.
ei isnt meant to be set in stone the way most people think that it is. you dont "have" to do weekly water changes with ei.
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/4882-Confusion-about-EI-and-other-myths
ei isnt meant to be set in stone the way most people think that it is. you dont "have" to do weekly water changes with ei.
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/4882-Confusion-about-EI-and-other-myths
we're getting off of the ops topic though. he wants to know about target numbers. not about water changes or dosing methods.
ei, pps, whatever you want to do...
i reccommend that you get your co2 up to where you want it, 30ppm prefferably. then dose your tank with your nutrients and then test with a calibrated test kit. and keep testing, maybe daily to see what the nutrient uptake is daily or do it at the end of the week for weekly nutrient uptake. just make sure that you dont bottom out
ei, pps, whatever you want to do...
i reccommend that you get your co2 up to where you want it, 30ppm prefferably. then dose your tank with your nutrients and then test with a calibrated test kit. and keep testing, maybe daily to see what the nutrient uptake is daily or do it at the end of the week for weekly nutrient uptake. just make sure that you dont bottom out
When I said 30 ppm, all I meant was you can't cheat with high light. More CO2 is always preferable.
And I think the waterchanges are on topic because all this stuff works together as a system. The majority of people get in trouble when they pick and choose aspects from different systems that don't work together.
And I think the waterchanges are on topic because all this stuff works together as a system. The majority of people get in trouble when they pick and choose aspects from different systems that don't work together.
fantastic input by both canuck and timwag...
remember... though all this info is great info... you can't take what you want from it and just apply it and think all will be well. that's one thing these guys both seem to be getting at and agreeing on. your tank will delegate to you that if you have x, y, and z parameters you'll need Q parameter to keep things happy. hence the reason you can't just mix and match. for example: a low light npt can not support the carbon intake of a high light ei tank. without injection it's just not gonna happen cap'n. however one could choose a natural or mineralized substrate for a high light tank to help supplement the nutrient uptake and buy you some time between root feedings or wiggle room for those times we forget to dose.
remember... though all this info is great info... you can't take what you want from it and just apply it and think all will be well. that's one thing these guys both seem to be getting at and agreeing on. your tank will delegate to you that if you have x, y, and z parameters you'll need Q parameter to keep things happy. hence the reason you can't just mix and match. for example: a low light npt can not support the carbon intake of a high light ei tank. without injection it's just not gonna happen cap'n. however one could choose a natural or mineralized substrate for a high light tank to help supplement the nutrient uptake and buy you some time between root feedings or wiggle room for those times we forget to dose.
This page gives a quick reference of the recommended nutrient targets depending on your individual tank's needs.
http://littlegreencorner.com/howtodosefert.html
...and here is more on the PPS method if you haven't already read about it through another posted link:
http://sites.google.com/site/aquaticplantfertilizer/home/pps-pro
http://sites.google.com/site/aquaticplantfertilizer/home/pps-classic
http://littlegreencorner.com/howtodosefert.html
...and here is more on the PPS method if you haven't already read about it through another posted link:
http://sites.google.com/site/aquaticplantfertilizer/home/pps-pro
http://sites.google.com/site/aquaticplantfertilizer/home/pps-classic
Last edited:
You need not not assume that EI requires 50% water change a week, I do once a month of 2 of my tanks, none on the non CO2 tank and weekly on some of my tanks. Depends.
For management of growth rates/work etc, you start where growth starts....sort of obvious ain't it?
I suggest you use less light......why not actually test light while we are at it????
Humm............I'm being a teaser, but it does make a good point, why only test 1/3 and the most minor part of it........with respect to testing what makes aquatic plants grow??? Light CO2 and nutrients. Light drives CO2 demand, which in turns drives all nutrient uptake.
Without the carbon skeletons to incorporate the nutrients, all this stops.
Without the light to power CO2 uptake, this all stops.
Without nutrients to help build the other parts, adding all the light/CO2 does not matter.
So, test the light too!!
It's easy but the meters cost 200-350$ or so, but these can be rented or shared amongst hobbyists, Reefers use them all the time.
Then you have a much better idea of the whole picture.
CO2 is real issue however.
It's the most difficult and transient of all the parameters and central to most of the problems.
I guess folks think they can test what folks have tested for the last 30 years or or more and find new insight. Or you can test things folks have not and put all the pieces together to have a much better understanding.
Still Tropic and myself among others have long said the same things:
http://www.tropica.com/advising/technical-articles/biology-of-aquatic-plants/co2-and-light.aspx
Nutrients are easy and you can modify any method of dosing, they do add all the same things after all.....just at different rates.
Most folks do NOT test consistently and guess, or use the plants as the test kits. I gave up telling them to test a long time ago. When you tell them to test, this also means they have to calibrate the test kits, another step.....that most, maybe 90-95% do NOT do.
So those test data are simply guesses anyway, let alone the light PAR value........and even worse, CO2.
So it opens up a whole can of worms really.
If you are new, is sounds simple when the LFS tells you to test.
Still, EI is just modified PMDD and only uses 50% weekly WC's as an example. It is easy to modify and reduce and I've NEVER once stated otherwise. Other folks have assume this........but I have never said it once.
And I ought to know.
A simple way to reduce the dosing is to start with a non limiting level, then slow and progressively redeuce the dosing down till you hit a negative response from the plants, adjust say 10% less dosing each 2 weeks.
Once you see the negative response, bump back up to the next highest dosing rate.
This is the optimal dosing rate, then you can reduce the % water change since there's less estimated build up. So you can easily reduce the % water changes with a little effort and also.......no testing ppm's, using only the plants as a test kit.
Yes, both require observations and patience, the latter is seriously lacking in aquarist however.
PPS is almost entirely PMDD, darn near plagerism if you ask me, I happen to know both sides of the folks with these methods.
Still, test vs water change, testing the right parameters to begin with that are the root differences(light/CO2), sediment vs water column etc......most of these issues are human, not plant growth issues, folks have the assumptions, they are impatient, they say they want to test but do not......they look to lay blame on the methods, not themselves
The methods do not fail, we do.
Will you learn a lot by testing nutrients?
Not a whole lot without also testing light and CO2 really well and critically also.
Are you after a simple easy method to grow plants without much labor?
Then use non CO2 methods, they are proven and require no water changes(I've gone 2 years without them).
No one method will be all things to every aquarist goal either.
If you want to test, by all means do it...........however, make sure you understand the light and CO2 issues very well before making any conclusions, and also......what constitutes an effective control in any test on plant growth, algae and plant health.
In general, I use light to manage my rates of growth, I use sediment rich source of ferts, and I use the water column dosing as well. I prefer getting the most out my lighting and this minimizes all algae, enhances the growth of the plants without becoming weedy etc. Why waste electric light energy and then limit one of the cheapest things we have? Ferts and water?
Those are far cheaper than light electrical cost. Few alos are willing to spend 300$+ on light meter, or on nicer high grade test kits. I must have 6K$ worth of test equipment and standards, but I'm a bit more into testing than the average aquarist also
This does not include the work USDA lab either.......just my personal stashHope this helps
Regards
Tom Barr
BTW, the Tropica artilce really shows how the different methods with CO2/non CO2 enrichment still both grow plants.....but at different rates.
We add CO2 to reduce CO2 competition between species and also to enhance the light use efficacy. Plants still grow without adding CO2 gas, just much slower and less efficiently.
The trade off between sediment and water column is also large......hard to measure rates of uptake etc in sediments, very few hobbyists measure wetland soils, but any can measure the water column.
It's also much easier to dose the sediment once you set it up, but it has a finite life in terms of N.
I think you modify your water change routines, and make them easier, consider hard plumbing a simple drain/fill valve etc, these can be automated also.........this makes the labor go way way down.
I use a simple hose with a PCV hook to drain and refill from the shower head:
I hang it on and water the lawn, once drained, I place on the shower head.
I can change 5 tanks and 500 gal worth of tanks in 1.8 hours and likely post 3 post like this in between, eat breakfast, and do my email.
Or clean all the filters, wipe all the glass, feed all the fish and any othe rmaintenance on 500 Gal worth of wells tocked, well scaped aquariums.
That's not much time per week. No water is wasted, landscape is nice looking.I do not lift anything other than a hose. I can do a 50% water change 2x faster than you can test NO3 on a 20 gal tank.
Everyone pretty much knows how to do a water change also.
Test kits and making known standards? I just do not see many going with that one, and experience with hobbyists sure tells me otherwise.
Still, some folks argue strongly for it.
I do as well, but only to answer specific questions a priori.
That way I no longer need to test from then on. Many come to water changes/dosing this way, they test some, then stop.
Regards,
Tom Barr
We add CO2 to reduce CO2 competition between species and also to enhance the light use efficacy. Plants still grow without adding CO2 gas, just much slower and less efficiently.
The trade off between sediment and water column is also large......hard to measure rates of uptake etc in sediments, very few hobbyists measure wetland soils, but any can measure the water column.
It's also much easier to dose the sediment once you set it up, but it has a finite life in terms of N.
I think you modify your water change routines, and make them easier, consider hard plumbing a simple drain/fill valve etc, these can be automated also.........this makes the labor go way way down.
I use a simple hose with a PCV hook to drain and refill from the shower head:
I hang it on and water the lawn, once drained, I place on the shower head.
I can change 5 tanks and 500 gal worth of tanks in 1.8 hours and likely post 3 post like this in between, eat breakfast, and do my email.
Or clean all the filters, wipe all the glass, feed all the fish and any othe rmaintenance on 500 Gal worth of wells tocked, well scaped aquariums.
That's not much time per week. No water is wasted, landscape is nice looking.I do not lift anything other than a hose. I can do a 50% water change 2x faster than you can test NO3 on a 20 gal tank.
Everyone pretty much knows how to do a water change also.
Test kits and making known standards? I just do not see many going with that one, and experience with hobbyists sure tells me otherwise.
Still, some folks argue strongly for it.
I do as well, but only to answer specific questions a priori.
That way I no longer need to test from then on. Many come to water changes/dosing this way, they test some, then stop.
Regards,
Tom Barr
